Replies

I always find it interesting that a protestant will declare someone is a Christian...until they are not. Which is dependent upon hindsight and a retroactive application of personal repudiation of another's sins. Usually followed by some form of democratic consensus within a particular ecclesial community. In this instance we have individuals engaged in the sin of pride and gluttony (drug use) which supposedly has put them outside the Body of Christ and separated them from the community of Christians; according to the protestant who has declared one, "not a Christian." If that is the case then I don't see how one can legitimately claim OSAS or any other doctrine of perseverance. Further complicating the issue is the inherently juridical act of declaring one a non-Christian. It certainly has the feel of a governing body with supposed magisterial authority.

A person's opinion of who is a Christian and who is not, based on behavior is not an authoritatively binding decision.

It's simply a person's opinion.

What it seems that Catholics fail to realize is the distinction between claiming to be born again and living in unrepentant sin, having evidenced NO change in their lives that indicates a new birth despite having claimed to make a decision for Christ, and struggling with sin in their lives, which we all do.

A person's opinion of who is a Christian and who is not, based on behavior is not an authoritatively binding decision. It's simply a person's opinion.

So...the next time someone on the RF makes the claim that Catholics are not Christians based on behavior they find disagreeable are you willing to correct them publicly and inform them that is simply their opinion and is not a matter of established fact?

As evidenced according to the third party observer. It's funny. When I tell people at the office I'm Catholic I inevitably hear, "I didn't know that. You don't seem like a spiritual person." That's the response I get from protestants and atheists alike. So I'm forced to respond, "That's because I'm a religious person, not a spiritual person." That phrasing used in the context of the common parlance of general everyday discussion lest some protestant feel compelled to jump all over that statement. People seem to have this notion of Christians as portrayed by Ned Flanders of The Simpsons. But I digress.

So where was I? Oh yes, works. Am I to understand that the protestant position is to examine externals for evidence of being born again and thereby negating the sola fide position? And so because I exhibited no external sign at the office that I am a Christian I am therefore not a Christian? After all aren't good works supposed to be a natural outflow of being born again and failing to exhibit such works constitutes the status of an indvidual's place within the Body of Christ and their salvation?

We all struggle with sin, that's true. But A Christian is still a Christian regardless if they are unrepentant in their sin. It just makes them a bad Christian. Unfortunately, with much of protestantism based on personal interpretation and opinion, the ability to follow scripture and rebuke our fellow man only goes so far defined by the "as evidenced" standard. And so, the Christian in a position to help their fellow man fails to act charitably because they have been biased by their ability to see the "as evidenced" evidence and their own personal opinion on when a Christian is no longer a Christian.

Or, they said they were, when in realty, they did not walk the walk. Anyone can say things when they know good and well, they are lying. Just like those priests who abuse children. They were never really saved in the first place. The church officials should have done something about them in the beginning instead of covering it up. There was a man in this state who taught kids in a hurch and abused some of them. He was fired right then and there. That is the right way of dealing wih criminals and that is what they are.